On 2013-02-15 15:29, Christian Hammond wrote:
Yes, this is "correct" in that this is how it's known to work. It's not ideal,
though. There are many things with interdiffs that could be improved, some easy to fix,
some harder. This might not be so bad, if someone wanted to take it on. (I won't be able
to get to it any time soon.)
On a related note, is there a public list of things to improve (other
than issues floating around in the tracker)?
Something related that occurred to me would be to compute the range of
modified lines for each revision and throw out any (inter)diff hunks
that don't appear in at least one (mainly benefits revisions with
different merge bases).
Drifting even further off topic, have you ever given thought to using
patience diff in RB? (I've seen spots where it would have been an
improvement... might help with better moved-lines detection also. For
that matter, what would be REALLY cool would be to compute common lines
across the entire patch, to get cross-file line move detection :-).)
On another related note, moved-lines detection might benefit from doing
similarity comparison on adjacent lines, to find lines that were moved
with changes.
(There's lots of stuff - like this - that I'd actually love to work on
if I could justify doing it 'on the clock'...)
--
Matthew
--
Want to help the Review Board project? Donate today at
http://www.reviewboard.org/donate/
Happy user? Let us know at http://www.reviewboard.org/users/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/reviewboard?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "reviewboard" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to reviewboard+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
